3 ms·

Not like the US has played any part in this whatsoever, nothing to do with Venezuela being an oil rich nation and not bowing to the US cronies. What next? News

Not like the US has played any part in this whatsoever, nothing to do with Venezuela being an oil rich nation and not bowing to the US cronies. What next? News about the US sponsoring the 'Free Venezuelan Army', the moderate rebels?

bpodgursky 9y ago
Go away. The US has been aggressively non-interventionist in Venezuela through this entire crisis -- no wide sanctions or anything. Chavez and his cronies made their own bed, and now the whole country has to sleep in it.
- igravious 9y ago
  “CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government” tag line: The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs date: Tuesday 25 July 2017 16:00 BST http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-venezuela-crisis-government-mike-pompeo-helping-install-new-remarks-a7859771.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-venezue...
- ushegemony 9y ago
  You must have never heard of a thing called an 'NGO' or the 'CIA'. Even when, on the surface (i.e: what CNN says), the US is not pursuing it's interests globally, you can be pretty sure that it has its finger in the pie somewhere. heres an example of some of the US's 'assistance' to voices that they want heard. http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2010/240-241/media2.htm http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2010/240-241/media2.htm I'm definitely not pro-socialist or anti-capitalist, those are just overused labels which only further muddy any discourse on the issue's which matter. Given the US's history in South and Latin America though (and to be honest, world-wide), I definitely don't see them as some beacon of freedom and democracy. sidenote, same shit happened in Brazil, Rousseff was democratically elected, media (which is owned by a small oligarchy in Brazil) fanned the flames to get her impeached, the replacement? An equally corrupt, more Washington leaning politician (we don't see the media jumping up and down as much for this one though). Dilma was looking to strengthen BRICS and that obviously couldn't go on. (all politicians in Brazil are corrupt, thats the only reason you become a politician in brazil, no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on) [1]: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/730909086775152641 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/730909086775152641
  - ymgch 9y ago
    diLma was looking to strengthen the Communism above all. I don't like Temer at all, but, diLma as president, braziL could be in much worse path. Hope both of this corruPTs (among others) be in jail soon.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > Rousseff was democratically elected, media (which is owned by a small oligarchy in Brazil) fanned the flames to get her impeached, the replacement? Are you talking about the same Dilma Rousseff who has been continuously cooking Brazil's books to try to hide away a chronic economic crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_pedaling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_pedaling Are you talking about the same Dilma Rousseff who tried to nominate her fellow Worker's Party colleague Lula da Silva into her cabinet just to grant him immunity from being prosecuted for corruption? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-rousseff-idUSKCN0WI1T0 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-rousseff-idUSKCN0WI... I'm sure she was only hoisted by Brazil's own elected representatives because of bad publicity. I mean, it's not that she did anything wrong or anything.
    - tnzn 9y ago
      Did you even read his fucking comment or do you just cherry pick phrases and build a strawman from that ?
  - ushegemony 9y ago
    ymgch, geezerjay I 110% agree with you both, like I said, all politicians in Brasil are corrupt, and I'm not making excuses for any of them, I was illustrating US meddling, which is always sold as 'getting rid of bad people', when in fact its really just 'replace their corrupt people, with our corrupt people', The US has been trying to get rid of Dilma (and Lula prior to her) for years. geezerjay you don't have to link me articles about her being corrupt, I'm a Brasilian national so I'm well informed of the situation.
    - geezerjay 9y ago
      > The US has been trying to get rid of Dilma (and Lula prior to her) for years. It seems to me that you're conflating the natural consequences of the problems these politicians create to themselves with an assumption that it would be convenient for third-party to get rid of them. Regarding Dilma and Lula, they are very corrupt individuals who rose through the ranks of a very corrupt political party, and the judicial branch happened to catch them. Consequently, their political power and ability to avoid being held accountable for their crimes reached its limit. Just because Lula was sentenced to 10 years in prison it doesn't mean that the US is responsible for him taking bribes.
- ionised 9y ago
  > The US has been aggressively non-interventionist in Venezuela I'm sorry but I don't believe that for a minute.
alkonaut 9y ago
The short story: the US meddled in latin america for so long that now it's trivial for populist/socialist despots to take power under no other pretense than "keep the US out". Obviously the international community has to be active here, but I don't think it's clever to do the usual let-CIA-help-the-opposition (which in part is why we are here in the first place). This should be international aid for democratic reform.
- ushegemony 9y ago
  I agree for the most part alkonaut, but it always becomes a dangerous game, what does being a 'democracy' entail? Does it mean that all countries need to accept some globally sanctioned form of morality with little regard for their own cultural heritage? It just feels like something that would so easily be subject to mission creep.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    what kind of cultural heritage would be threatened by foreign support for liberal democracy (demanding e.g journalists are not jailed without trial in return for aid or other support)? Romania should stop treating minorities badly or the EU should withold funds, as a concrete example. There are similar examples for Poland with respect to media and division of power (also tenets of liberal democracy). I don't know exactly what concrete actions could be taken with Venezuela.
    - ushegemony 9y ago
      I'm not talking about journalists being jailed etc, I should have given a more concrete example, I am referring to more liberal countries trying to enforce their ideologies onto more conservative countries. I think all this stuff encroaches too much on the sovereignty of a peoples / country, which some people in this ever more globalised world don't see as a bad thing for some reason.
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        Do you have any concrete examples of liberal countries pushing values? I mean as one example we can take western countries that give aid to African countries - is it right or wrong to condition the aid on ending persecution of homosexuals? Perhaps not a good example...

bpodgursky 9y ago

Go away. The US has been aggressively non-interventionist in Venezuela through this entire crisis -- no wide sanctions or anything. Chavez and his cronies made their own bed, and now the whole country has to sleep in it.

igravious 9y ago
“CIA chief hints agency is working to change Venezuelan government” tag line: The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America's affairs date: Tuesday 25 July 2017 16:00 BST http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-venezuela-crisis-government-mike-pompeo-helping-install-new-remarks-a7859771.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-venezue...
ushegemony 9y ago
You must have never heard of a thing called an 'NGO' or the 'CIA'. Even when, on the surface (i.e: what CNN says), the US is not pursuing it's interests globally, you can be pretty sure that it has its finger in the pie somewhere. heres an example of some of the US's 'assistance' to voices that they want heard. http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2010/240-241/media2.htm http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2010/240-241/media2.htm I'm definitely not pro-socialist or anti-capitalist, those are just overused labels which only further muddy any discourse on the issue's which matter. Given the US's history in South and Latin America though (and to be honest, world-wide), I definitely don't see them as some beacon of freedom and democracy. sidenote, same shit happened in Brazil, Rousseff was democratically elected, media (which is owned by a small oligarchy in Brazil) fanned the flames to get her impeached, the replacement? An equally corrupt, more Washington leaning politician (we don't see the media jumping up and down as much for this one though). Dilma was looking to strengthen BRICS and that obviously couldn't go on. (all politicians in Brazil are corrupt, thats the only reason you become a politician in brazil, no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on) [1]: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/730909086775152641 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/730909086775152641
- ymgch 9y ago
  diLma was looking to strengthen the Communism above all. I don't like Temer at all, but, diLma as president, braziL could be in much worse path. Hope both of this corruPTs (among others) be in jail soon.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > Rousseff was democratically elected, media (which is owned by a small oligarchy in Brazil) fanned the flames to get her impeached, the replacement? Are you talking about the same Dilma Rousseff who has been continuously cooking Brazil's books to try to hide away a chronic economic crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_pedaling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_pedaling Are you talking about the same Dilma Rousseff who tried to nominate her fellow Worker's Party colleague Lula da Silva into her cabinet just to grant him immunity from being prosecuted for corruption? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-rousseff-idUSKCN0WI1T0 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-rousseff-idUSKCN0WI... I'm sure she was only hoisted by Brazil's own elected representatives because of bad publicity. I mean, it's not that she did anything wrong or anything.
  - tnzn 9y ago
    Did you even read his fucking comment or do you just cherry pick phrases and build a strawman from that ?
- ushegemony 9y ago
  ymgch, geezerjay I 110% agree with you both, like I said, all politicians in Brasil are corrupt, and I'm not making excuses for any of them, I was illustrating US meddling, which is always sold as 'getting rid of bad people', when in fact its really just 'replace their corrupt people, with our corrupt people', The US has been trying to get rid of Dilma (and Lula prior to her) for years. geezerjay you don't have to link me articles about her being corrupt, I'm a Brasilian national so I'm well informed of the situation.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > The US has been trying to get rid of Dilma (and Lula prior to her) for years. It seems to me that you're conflating the natural consequences of the problems these politicians create to themselves with an assumption that it would be convenient for third-party to get rid of them. Regarding Dilma and Lula, they are very corrupt individuals who rose through the ranks of a very corrupt political party, and the judicial branch happened to catch them. Consequently, their political power and ability to avoid being held accountable for their crimes reached its limit. Just because Lula was sentenced to 10 years in prison it doesn't mean that the US is responsible for him taking bribes.
ionised 9y ago
> The US has been aggressively non-interventionist in Venezuela I'm sorry but I don't believe that for a minute.

alkonaut 9y ago

The short story: the US meddled in latin america for so long that now it's trivial for populist/socialist despots to take power under no other pretense than "keep the US out". Obviously the international community has to be active here, but I don't think it's clever to do the usual let-CIA-help-the-opposition (which in part is why we are here in the first place). This should be international aid for democratic reform.

ushegemony 9y ago
I agree for the most part alkonaut, but it always becomes a dangerous game, what does being a 'democracy' entail? Does it mean that all countries need to accept some globally sanctioned form of morality with little regard for their own cultural heritage? It just feels like something that would so easily be subject to mission creep.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  what kind of cultural heritage would be threatened by foreign support for liberal democracy (demanding e.g journalists are not jailed without trial in return for aid or other support)? Romania should stop treating minorities badly or the EU should withold funds, as a concrete example. There are similar examples for Poland with respect to media and division of power (also tenets of liberal democracy). I don't know exactly what concrete actions could be taken with Venezuela.
  - ushegemony 9y ago
    I'm not talking about journalists being jailed etc, I should have given a more concrete example, I am referring to more liberal countries trying to enforce their ideologies onto more conservative countries. I think all this stuff encroaches too much on the sovereignty of a peoples / country, which some people in this ever more globalised world don't see as a bad thing for some reason.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      Do you have any concrete examples of liberal countries pushing values? I mean as one example we can take western countries that give aid to African countries - is it right or wrong to condition the aid on ending persecution of homosexuals? Perhaps not a good example...